Abstract
Domain ontologies may provide the proper level of abstraction in modeling semantic constraints and business rules in BPM; in fact, ontologies are intended to define terminologies to be shared within and across organizations and reused in different applications. In this paper we show how Answer Set Programming (ASP), a powerful framework for declarative problem solving, can accommodate for domain ontologies in modeling and reasoning about Business Processes, especially for process verification. Description Logics (DLs) provide the formal counterpart of ontologies, and in our approach knowledge on the process domain is expressed in a low-complexity DL. Terms from the ontology can be used in embedding business rules in the model as well as in expressing constraints that should be verified to achieve compliance by design. Causal rules for reasoning on side-effects of activities in the process domain can be derived, based on knowledge expressed in the DL. We show how ASP can accommodate them, relying on a reasoning about actions and change approach, for process analysis, and, in particular, for verifying formulas in temporal logic.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
As a consequence of the introduction of the causal laws for the axioms in \(\mathcal T\), there is no need to exploit a DL reasoner, as each state is guaranteed to satisfy \(\mathcal T\).
- 2.
It could be modeled separately in a decision model, an issue we do not address in this paper.
- 3.
The work in [22] allows for conditions on numerical data – e.g., the piece number in an order is larger than 50000 – to be used in the model and in the formulae to be verified. In order to deal with them, without considering all individual values in the – finite but large – numerical domain, it relies on Constraint ASP [19]. In this paper we do not consider this feature, which can however be integrated with the ones addressed here, and would provide another form of abstraction, complementary to the use of ontologies.
References
Artale, A., Kontchakov, R., Ryzhikov, V., Zakharyaschev, M.: DL-Lite with temporalised concepts, rigid axioms and roles. In: 7th International Symposium on Frontiers of Combining Systems, FroCoS 2009, Trento, Italy, 16–18 September 2009, Proceedings, pp. 133–148 (2009)
Awad, A., Weidlich, M., Weske, M.: Visually specifying compliance rules and explaining their violations for business processes. J. Vis. Lang. Comput. 22(1), 30–55 (2011)
Baader, F., Brandt, S., Lutz, C.: Pushing the \(\cal{EL}\) envelope. In: Kaelbling, L., Saffiotti, A. (eds.) Proceedings of IJCAI 2005, pp. 364–369, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, August 2005
Baader, F., Brandt, S., Lutz, C.: Pushing the \(\cal{EL}\) envelope. In: LTCS-Report LTCS-05-01. Institute for Theoretical Computer Science, TU Dresden (2005)
Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D.L., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)
Hariri, B.B., Calvanese, D., Montali, M., De Giacomo, G., De Masellis, R., Felli, P.: Description logic knowledge and action bases. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 46, 651–686 (2013)
Baier, C., Katoen, J.: Principles of Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (2008)
Baral, C., Gelfond, M.: Reasoning agents in dynamic domains. In: Minker, J. (ed.) Logic-Based Artificial Intelligence, pp. 257–279 (2000)
Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E.M., Strichman, O., Zhu, Y.: Bounded model checking. Adv. Comput. 58, 118–149 (2003)
Calvanese, D., Dumas, M., Maggi, F.M., Montali, M.: Semantic DMN: formalizing decision models with domain knowledge. In: Rules and Reasoning - International Joint Conference, RuleML+RR 2017, London, UK, 12–15 July 2017, Proceedings, pp. 70–86 (2017)
Calvanese, D., Montali, M., Patrizi, F., Stawowy, M.: Plan synthesis for knowledge and action bases. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2016, New York, NY, USA, 9–15 July 2016, pp. 1022–1029 (2016)
Colombo Tosatto, S., Governatori, G., Kelsen, P.: Business process regulatory compliance is hard. IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput. 8(6), 958–970 (2015)
Dasseville, I., Janssens, L., Janssens, G., Vanthienen, J., Denecker, M.: Combining DMN and the knowledge base paradigm for flexible decision enactment. In: Supplementary Proceedings of the RuleML 2016 Challenge, Doctoral Consortium and Industry Track Hosted by the 10th International Web Rule Symposium, RuleML 2016 (2016)
De Masellis, R., Francescomarino, C.D., Ghidini, C., Montali, M., Tessaris, S.: Add data into business process verification: bridging the gap between theory and practice. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 4–9 February 2017, San Francisco, California, USA, pp. 1091–1099 (2017)
Dovier, A., Formisano, A., Pontelli, E.: Perspectives on logic-based approaches for reasoning about actions and change. In: Logic Programming, Knowledge Representation, and Nonmonotonic Reasoning - Essays Dedicated to Michael Gelfond on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, pp. 259–279 (2011)
Eiter, T., Faber, W., Leone, N., Pfeifer, G., Polleres, A.: A logic programming approach to knowledge-state planning: semantics and complexity. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic 5(2), 206–263 (2004)
Fahland, D., Favre, C., Koehler, J., Lohmann, N., Völzer, H., Wolf, K.: Analysis on demand: instantaneous soundness checking of industrial business process models. Data Knowl. Eng. 70(5), 448–466 (2011)
Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Kaufmann, B., Schaub, T.: Answer Set Solving in Practice. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, San Rafael (2012)
Gebser, M., Ostrowski, M., Schaub, T.: Constraint answer set solving. In: Hill, P.M., Warren, D.S. (eds.) ICLP 2009. LNCS, vol. 5649, pp. 235–249. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02846-5_22
Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The stable model semantics for logic programming. In: Logic Programming, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference and Symposium, pp. 1070–1080 (1988)
Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Action languages. Artif. Intell. 2, 193–210 (1998)
Giordano, L., Martelli, A., Spiotta, M., Theseider Dupré, D.: Business process verification with constraint temporal answer set programming. Theory Pract. Logic Prog. 13, 641–655 (2013)
Giordano, L., Martelli, A., Spiotta, M., Theseider Dupré, D.: ASP for reasoning about actions with an EL-bot knowledge base. In: Proceedings of the 31st Italian Conference on Computational Logic, Milano, Italy, 20–22 June 2016, pp. 214–229 (2016)
Giordano, L., Martelli, A., Theseider Dupré, D.: Reasoning about actions with temporal answer sets. Theory Pract. Logic Prog. 13, 201–225 (2013)
Giordano, L., Martelli, A., Theseider Dupré, D.: Temporal deontic action logic for the verification of compliance to norms in ASP. In: Proceedings of ICAIL 2013 (2013)
Giunchiglia, E., Lifschitz, V.: An action language based on causal explanation: preliminary report. Proc. AAAI/IAAI 1998, 623–630 (1998)
Henriksen, J., Thiagarajan, P.: Dynamic linear time temporal logic. Ann. Pure Appl. logic 96(1–3), 187–207 (1999)
Hoffmann, J., Weber, I., Governatori, G.: On compliance checking for clausal constraints in annotated process models. Inf. Syst. Front. 14, 155–177 (2009)
International Health Terminology Standards Development Organization: SNOMED CT. http://www.ihtsdo.org/snomed-ct/
Koubarakis, M., Plexousakis, D.: A formal framework for business process modelling and design. Inf. Syst. 27(5), 299–319 (2002)
Ly, L.T., Rinderle-Ma, S., Göser, K., Dadam, P.: On enabling integrated process compliance with semantic constraints in process management systems - requirements, challenges, solutions. Inf. Syst. Front. 14(2), 195–219 (2012)
zur Muehlen, M., Indulska, M.: Modeling languages for business processes and business rules: a representational analysis. Inf. Syst. 35(4), 379–390 (2010)
Object Management Group: Object Management Group: Decision Model and Notation (DMN) 1.0. http://www.omg.org/spec/DMN/1.0/
Roa, H., Indulska, M., Sadiq, S.W.: Effectiveness of domain ontologies to facilitate shared understanding and cross-understanding. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems - Exploring the Information Frontier, ICIS 2015, Fort Worth, Texas, USA, 13–16 December 2015
Sadiq, S., Governatori, G., Namiri, K.: Modeling control objectives for business process compliance. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 149–164. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75183-0_12
The Business Rules Group: Defininig business rules - What are they really? http://www.businessrulesgroup.org/first_paper/BRG-whatisBR_3ed.pdf
Wagner, G.: Rule modeling and markup. In: Reasoning Web, First International Summer School 2005, Msida, Malta, 25–29 July 2005, Tutorial Lectures, pp. 251–274 (2005)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Giordano, L., Theseider Dupré, D. (2018). Enriched Modeling and Reasoning on Business Processes with Ontologies and Answer Set Programming. In: Weske, M., Montali, M., Weber, I., vom Brocke, J. (eds) Business Process Management Forum. BPM 2018. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 329. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98651-7_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98651-7_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-98650-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-98651-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)